This is one of those rare times that I actually miss watching television.

Negative Sun

02-27-2007, 10:03 AM

That is very interesting, I think the Christian response to that is quite funny:

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

They hold it dear all right, but they also portray it to be true beyond a doubt (which is why I don't like Christianity, or other religions for that matter), and now that something might actually challenge that they are scared and portray it as false from the start.

Jae Onasi

02-27-2007, 11:59 AM

Just a general note for everyone:

There's a fine line between arguing against a religion and mocking it. Religion/areligion is a very sensitive topic, and I don't ascribe to the philosophy that everything should be made fun of just because one can.

There's a big difference between finding humor in a belief system (like little jokes) and using humor (usually sarcasm) with the intent of showing disrespect or disdain for a belief system. I'll allow the former in this forum but not the latter, because such disrespect and/or mockery invites flaming. This applies to any belief system--theistic religion, agnosticism, and atheism.

On the topic itself--there's not enough info in this article for me to find compelling evidence either for or against. The name 'Jesus' ("Yeshua" or Joshua) was quite common, as was Mary. Without knowing about the ossuaries themselves, the markings on the boxes, and how common it was for those to be used at that time, it's impossible to tell anything other than the fact that these boxes once contained someone's remains.

Samuel Dravis

02-27-2007, 02:20 PM

I don't think this is worth bothering about until there's more info available. It seems to me to be a PR trick to make people interested. I'm not too convinced that this guy will be any different from everyone else that has made the same claims. I think that the Amos Kloner from the article probably got it right: "They just want to get money for it."

Achilles

02-27-2007, 02:52 PM

On the topic itself--there's not enough info in this article for me to find compelling evidence either for or against. The name 'Jesus' ("Yeshua" or Joshua) was quite common, as was Mary. Without knowing about the ossuaries themselves, the markings on the boxes, and how common it was for those to be used at that time, it's impossible to tell anything other than the fact that these boxes once contained someone's remains.
I don't think this is worth bothering about until there's more info available. It seems to me to be a PR trick to make people interested. I'm not too convinced that this guy will be any different from everyone else that has made the same claims. I think that the Amos Kloner from the article probably got it right: "They just want to get money for it."

QFE

Hence my comments about television. The only way I'll see this is if it posted on YouTube or if Cameron releases a DVD. Bummer.

If the evidence is solid though, it will be interesting to see what the repercussions are. Personally, I don't believe in the historical Jesus anymore than I do the Biblical one, so...

JediMaster12

02-27-2007, 04:38 PM

On the topic itself--there's not enough info in this article for me to find compelling evidence either for or against. The name 'Jesus' ("Yeshua" or Joshua) was quite common, as was Mary. Without knowing about the ossuaries themselves, the markings on the boxes, and how common it was for those to be used at that time, it's impossible to tell anything other than the fact that these boxes once contained someone's remains.
I quite agree on that point. I have even heard the arguments concerning the arguments over the ossuary that supposedly has the remains of James the Lesser, the brother of Jesus. Those names are common in the Biblical times and it is hard to determine if it actually was that person.

On the whole, this documentary and article is remeniscent of The DaVinci Code and the theory that has been in existence since Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Now some of the evidence is compelling but like many who are skeptics, I would like to see more and if possible, see the artifacts myself.

I have been on a dig before and understand the process of removing artifacts and maintaining test pits and the like. The fact that it is there is fascinating enough but I would rather like to see for myself and more evidence.

Allronix

02-27-2007, 05:18 PM

Follow the evidence. If it's BS, it's BS. If it's evidence of the historical Jesus? That would be a priceless jewel of a find! There's so much we could learn just looking at the historical record and sorting truth from embellishment.

I just hope this isn't put to the torch because those weak in their faith are scared that they could be wrong and need to destroy any possibility that doesn't sync up with their version of events.

Jae Onasi

02-27-2007, 05:32 PM

Follow the evidence. If it's BS, it's BS. If it's evidence of the historical Jesus? That would be a priceless jewel of a find! There's so much we could learn just looking at the historical record and sorting truth from embellishment.

I just hope this isn't put to the torch because those weak in their faith are scared that they could be wrong and need to destroy any possibility that doesn't sync up with their version of events.

I'll agree with you on that--it would certainly redefine the idea of resurrection if that was Christ's ossuary, but if nothing else, it's a fascinating artifact that should be studied for its own sake.

Darth InSidious

02-27-2007, 06:59 PM

Haven't read the article yet, but there was a man about faking these kind of things roughly 5 years ago?

He made a false ossuary for Caiaphas, among others, IIRC, and also some tablets relating to the repair of Solomon's Temple...

Negative Sun

02-27-2007, 07:01 PM

Follow the evidence. If it's BS, it's BS. If it's evidence of the historical Jesus? That would be a priceless jewel of a find! There's so much we could learn just looking at the historical record and sorting truth from embellishment.

I just hope this isn't put to the torch because those weak in their faith are scared that they could be wrong and need to destroy any possibility that doesn't sync up with their version of events.
That's exactly what I was saying, but I might have been able to phrase it better...
I think that no matter what evidence comes up, some radicals will still deny it is true, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people did try and cover things up, again, that is basically what I meant to say with my previous post in this thread, I'm sorry if it came out too strong...

SilentScope001

02-27-2007, 07:40 PM

I don't think this is worth bothering about until there's more info available. It seems to me to be a PR trick to make people interested. I'm not too convinced that this guy will be any different from everyone else that has made the same claims. I think that the Amos Kloner from the article probably got it right: "They just want to get money for it."

QFE. If the guy's a liar...or nothing more than a mistaken person (which I suspect he could very well be ...there are so many tombs named after Jesus after all), so much for that. I also echo Achilles' comment that there may not be any proof the historical Jesus ever even existed (then again, there is no historical proof that many people existed in the first place).

If, however, people start to accept this person, then I'll modify my religion around this tiny thing, as well as most people. Let the fanatics believe what they will, if this is true, the majority will see the light. If this is false, the majority shall condemn it.

(It makes no sense, why [i]must religion always have to be edited over and over again to conform to some scientific discovery, just becaues it "appears" to be true? You dilute its value, its strength, and you are secretly surrendering to Science...No, I do not want to get in a debate over this, I just am pretty upset about how religious folks get criticized for accepting things purely on faith, when we have to accept everything on faith, including that I am typing on a computer. And since I believe in Science, well, I can handle dealing with the modifications.)

Man, I remember watching a documentray on the History Channel in which it debunked the whole world getting flooded during Noah's story, and believed that the true "Noah" was actually a drunkard merchant who had his city in Mestopima flooded as punishment from God...and we don't see anyone condemning that. :)

This is one of those rare times that I actually miss watching television.
Probably evidence that Jesus wasn't that special and more things in that Bible was made up. :lol:

jonathan7

02-28-2007, 10:54 AM

QFE

Hence my comments about television. The only way I'll see this is if it posted on YouTube or if Cameron releases a DVD. Bummer.

If the evidence is solid though, it will be interesting to see what the repercussions are. Personally, I don't believe in the historical Jesus anymore than I do the Biblical one, so...

Well, I have secular historical sources that say he did exsist :p But I'll stick that in when I finally get around to writing my reply for you in the religion an ethics thread, so you dont need to believe me just yet. ;) It may be interesting too note that one of the books I read in the past said that there is more evidence that Jesus exsisted than the Ceasars. (I must however confess I didn't check out the sources of the book to check the validity of that claim). Its also taking a while, as I'm finding sources etc for you Achilles, as I figer you would rather investigate it for yourself and come to your own conclusions :) Also trying to track down a Scientific Journal about Spontaneous Generation, but takes a while as have uni stuff to be getting on with as well. (sorry for the wait)

Darth InSidious

02-28-2007, 01:54 PM

Probably evidence that Jesus wasn't that special and more things in that Bible was made up. :lol:
It's not evidence until it's been verified by the archaeological community :dozey:

And as Jae said, both Yeshua and Mariamne were common names in first century Palestine. If anything, given the expensive nature of the ossuary displayed, it is more likely that the Mariamne in question was a member of the Herodian royal household, given the popularity of the name in that line.

Even if it is proven that the genetic code of these two is similar it would mean nothing in regards to Jesus of Nazareth.

Furthermore, the pictured sarcophagus has been carved in a fairly detailed manner - something that would be expensive, and I doubt the disciples could afford, given that many of them had given up everything to follow the Nazarene in his tours of the country preaching.

It isn't even proven that this sarcophagus is genuine, and may well have been faked. As I have said, such things are not unheard of, and pseudoarchaeology is rife even to this day - the Dendera Lightbulb and the Ancient Battery both being examples of this.

Also, even deciding that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine, as a man he was quite clearly very special. His teaching at that time was totally unique in the Mediterranean and Middle East, revolutionary in terms of Judaeism while inextricably rooted in it, and his philosophy outside Judeistic, Egyptian and Hellenistic ideas.

The Old Testament/Tanakh as an aural history is no more unreliable than any other, and in some ways is far more so.

The New Testament - if we accept that people believed this, and that they were taught it by the Apostles, it is unlikely it would have been altered- the end was thought to be near in the early Church, and so keeping the faith, and keeping it intact and as it was handed to you, was of supreme importance. If we take the view that it was made up, one should ask by whom? The complexity of the work, and it's numerous ties with the Tanakh/OT makes a Roman author unlikely, and stylistic points, the nature of Christ, and the written styles roughly equivalent to backwater dialects - koine Greek, and tatty koine Greek at that for the most part, with Luke and John being of a higher quality but nonetheless not first-rate stuff - would seem to rule out an author from the Greco-Roman and Egyptian world altogether.

Only a Jewish scholar would probably have the knowledge to forge something like this, and even then, the nature of the teaching, the writing and the characters within the Gospels make it unlikely, - simply put, the idea would not appeal to a Jewish scholar, and to fake such a tale would be considered a grave heresy.

Quite frankly, that it should have been faked or made up as you put it, I believe is unlikely because it simply wouldn't occur to the ancient psyche to make something like this up.

[/rant]

Achilles

02-28-2007, 03:32 PM

The New Testament - if we accept that people believed this, and that they were taught it by the Apostles, it is unlikely it would have been altered- the end was thought to be near in the early Church, and so keeping the faith, and keeping it intact and as it was handed to you, was of supreme importance. A few questions here: Why should we assume this? What evidence do we have that it was unchanged? How could we possibly know for sure?

Coincedentally, a lot of Biblical contradictions are attributed to scribal errors. Help me understand why we should assume that early Christian writings are free from error while later Christian writings are not.

If we take the view that it was made up, one should ask by whom? This is an excellent question. Do you have an answer? To the best of my knowledge all of the books contained in the Bible are anonymous works.

The complexity of the work, and it's numerous ties with the Tanakh/OT makes a Roman author unlikely I hope you're not suggesting that NT fulfillment of OT prophecies should be considered evidence of NT validity. My apologies if I'm missing the point and introducing a red herring.

and stylistic points, the nature of Christ, and the written styles roughly equivalent to backwater dialects - koine Greek, and tatty koine Greek at that for the most part, with Luke and John being of a higher quality but nonetheless not first-rate stuff - would seem to rule out an author from the Greco-Roman and Egyptian world altogether. Possibly. I'm no expert but my understanding of koine Greek is a little different. It was a very popular (and common) language. Using koine Greek would ensure that the writings could reach a wider "market". If the author(s) wanted to be truly snobbish, they would have used Arameic, Hebrew, or Latin exclusively.

In other words, this would be the equivalent of writing a modern novel using English; sure it will have be undergo translation in a few countries but most of the developed world can read English.

Only a Jewish scholar would probably have the knowledge to forge something like this, and even then, the nature of the teaching, the writing and the characters within the Gospels make it unlikely, Isn't Paul rumored to have been a Pharisee?

- simply put, the idea would not appeal to a Jewish scholar, and to fake such a tale would be considered a grave heresy. Ah, the things some people will do to feel important.

Quite frankly, that it should have been faked or made up as you put it, I believe is unlikely because it simply wouldn't occur to the ancient psyche to make something like this up. Wouldn't this be the same ancient psyche that made up all the polythesistic religions that came before Judiasm/Christianity? We dismiss those pretty readily nowadays as "made up".

Arátoeldar

02-28-2007, 08:12 PM

Isn't Paul rumored to have been a Pharisee?

No. The Pharisees were a sect with in the Judaic religion. They separated themselves from the average Jewish person and thus more holy-pure. The Pharisees would become what is now known as Rabbinical Judaism.

Jae Onasi

02-28-2007, 11:17 PM

Paul said in Acts 23:6 that he was 'a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.'

JediMaster12

03-01-2007, 04:31 PM

This is an excellent question. Do you have an answer? To the best of my knowledge all of the books contained in the Bible are anonymous works.
Not all of them. The gospels were written by John, Luke, Mark and Matthew, mostly after the fact the events took place. Corinthians is a letter from Paul. Don't ask me to verify but from my view, they were not all anonymous. Unless you are counting the Gnostics and the apocrapha (forgive the spelling), then that might add some weight. This sounds more of a blanket statement that really doesn't apply.

As to the discovery, I am maintaining a cautious stance on this since it does tread close to the whole issue of Christianity as we know it. My reasoning tells me to remain skeptical until the archaeological remains are verified of a time and place. As to the persons within the ossuaries, that might take a bit more. This is one of those instances where we dream of seeing something grand like the remains of Jesus but when it is claimed to be found and the dream a reality, we balk at the acceptance. I believe this perfectly natural seeing as everything concerning religion is mired in tradition. Cultural evolution and the passage of time often obscure the reasons behind tradition. When a scholar comes out with documentation that contradicts it, the first thing out is that it is heresy or that it's a fake.

Achilles

03-01-2007, 05:50 PM

Not all of them. The gospels were written by John, Luke, Mark and Matthew, mostly after the fact the events took place. Corinthians is a letter from Paul. Don't ask me to verify but from my view, they were not all anonymous. Unless you are counting the Gnostics and the apocrapha (forgive the spelling), then that might add some weight. This sounds more of a blanket statement that really doesn't apply.
The four canonical gospels weren't associated with "their authors" until approximately 300 years after the events transpired. In other words, we have no idea if G.Mark was actually written by Mark or should be attributed to Mark. To the best of my knowledge (again, I am not an expert) most of the books in the Bible have no clear authors. Most theologians will make a case for this author or that, but very little of it can be confirmed.

I concede your point on Paul (and Corinthians) however I think it behoves us to remember that Paul admits that he never saw Jesus Christ.

As to the discovery, I am maintaining a cautious stance on this since it does tread close to the whole issue of Christianity as we know it. My reasoning tells me to remain skeptical until the archaeological remains are verified of a time and place. As to the persons within the ossuaries, that might take a bit more. This is one of those instances where we dream of seeing something grand like the remains of Jesus but when it is claimed to be found and the dream a reality, we balk at the acceptance. I believe this perfectly natural seeing as everything concerning religion is mired in tradition. Cultural evolution and the passage of time often obscure the reasons behind tradition. When a scholar comes out with documentation that contradicts it, the first thing out is that it is heresy or that it's a fake. I agree that healthy skeptism is called for here. I'm sure that the producers are going to do everything in their power to help sensationalize an already controversial topic.

Achilles

03-07-2007, 06:55 PM

So did anyone get a chance to see this? I caught a few clips on YouTube last night, but it just seemed like Simcha Jacobovici babbling a lot.

Off-topic: Was it just me or did Simcha (http://medias.lefigaro.fr/photos/20070228.FIG000000040_9280_1.jpg) bear a striking resemblance to Christof (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0120382/Ss/0120382/AU21_1_20.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0120382) from The Truman Show?

The Source

03-08-2007, 03:30 PM

I'll agree with you on that--it would certainly redefine the idea of resurrection if that was Christ's ossuary, but if nothing else, it's a fascinating artifact that should be studied for its own sake.
I don't know about that. When it comes to scripture, the greatest biblical leaders still don't agree on translation. I personally don't believe that anyone (Christians, Jewish, etc...) can make a hundred percent translation of the bible. Fundamentalists follow the bible to its 'word'. Otherwords, there is no translation except for 'the word'. Remember, the references to Reincarnation was rumored to have been written into the bible, but only to be removed to prevent comfussion. One can only make guesses on what other stories were omited. If this tomb is where Christ was burried, I don't see how this would affect the ressurection. If they found a body in the tomb, they would have to go back into time and give Jesus a DNA test. What they need to do, as you have mentioned, is to find some reliable artifacts. You never know what they will find. They could find a female body, which belonged to Mary Mageline (sp?). It would only be fitting if she was burried in Jesus's tomb. Some people consider her to be the thirteenth desciple.

Jae Onasi

03-08-2007, 05:47 PM

So did anyone get a chance to see this? I caught a few clips on YouTube last night, but it just seemed like Simcha Jacobovici babbling a lot.

Gah, I totally forgot it was on. I'm sure it'll get re-run at some point, and I'll try to catch it then. I'd certainly like to see what they found, the debate over whether it contained Christ's remains notwithstanding.

Kurgan

03-10-2007, 09:44 PM

This is more like "Holy Blood Holy Grail" than the Da Vinci Code, because it is based in part on real artifacts, rather than made up ones. It's also more believable than the other claimed "tomb of Jesus complete with corpse" in the Kashmir. However...

We get the same kind of sensationalism every year. I've seen the documentary and watched all the interviews the director had put on Youtube, but needless to say there's some major holes in the interpretations (ie: how do they get from Mariamne, the sister of Philip the apostle in the 4th/5th century apocryphal work extent from the 14th century to Mary Magdalane? How do they get that this same woman is the wife of Jesus rather than the wife of somebody else in the tomb?).

There's also some blatant mistakes, Ie: Jacobovici claiming Jesus said "If you want to know what I'm up to read the book of Jonah"... which is a misquote (he said the sign of Jonah would be the only sign he would give, ie: his 3 days in the tomb vs. Jonah's 3 days in the belly of the fish) and irrelevant anyway since Simcha is just reacting to a fragment of a MODERN copy of Jonah found in the tomb... ruined manuscripts thrown out of a Yeshiva, since Sacred texts in Judaism are buried rather than destroyed like other garbage out of respect.

Or that it's a mere "Tradition" that Jesus on the cross in the Gospel of John is talking to Mary his Mother. It says in the actual text that he's talking to his mother and the "beloved Disciple" not (as Simcha believes) Mary Magdalane (his wife) and his young son Judah.

It seems odd that there's no tradition of Jesus being married or having any children, either among "orthodox" Christian tradition or writings, heretical writings or opponents of Christianity in the early years.

The earliest reference to a "spiritual marriage" of Jesus may date to the time of the 12th century Cathars, but they were a sect that preached celibacy anyway, so it's unlikely to be relevant. Then we have the Mormons claiming Jesus was a polygamist in the 19th century, and finally the 20th century fiction "The Last Temptation of Christ" (which featured Jesus' married status and sex life in a dream within the fictional story), the Holy Blood Holy Grail nonsense built upon the hoax of Pierre Plantard (who never claimed descendance from Jesus, but the writers of the book did), the ramblings of kooks like Picknett/Prince and Starbird, and finally Dan Brown's famous novel and movie.

Viewing the Jesus Tomb's official website, before I saw the doco also set off kook alarm bells. The site really seemed focused towards promotion and piggy-backing off the controversy of the Da Vinci Code. There were even pages devoted to the Freemasons and the Templars (oh brother, didn't we already go down that road?). The reliance on the Acts of Philip is also highly problematic. I hadn't read the text at that point, but I did read it to make sure I hadn't missed something.

It would seem ridiculous that the early Christian movement, based on the resurrection of Jesus (in the earliest Christian writings we have, the letters of Paul, from the 50's-60's CE) would be able to survive if his family tomb was right there in Jerusalem.

After getting burned on the "James Ossuary" (which I actually went to see in Ontario as part of my trip there) I will admit I was skeptical of claims like this. When I first heard about this I thought "well you never know" but as I learn more and more, I'm becoming more and more skeptical of the claims of this amateur.

I'll take a look at the book when I get a chance, just in case they explain any of the significant holes and unanswered questions from the documentary.

It seems reasonable to me that this is the family tomb of Hanun of Jerusalem (or Yeshua of Jerusalem, not Yeshua Bar Yosef, called the Messiah, of Nazareth. ;)

Of course, as with the DVC, someone will say "Oh you're just saying that because you're a Christian." But nevermind that, let the scholarly community debunk it as they have already begun to. Poor James Tabor though, I don't know what he's thinking...

It is funny though that the atheist "Jesus Mythers" will also have to disclaim Jacobovici's interpretation of the 1980 find, simply because it refutes their beliefs as well. ;)

Kurgan

03-10-2007, 10:11 PM

Oh, forgot something,

The four canonical gospels weren't associated with "their authors" until approximately 300 years after the events transpired.

That's not entirely true, offhand I know for a fact that Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) associates them with their "traditional authors" in Against Heresies which was written in the 170's. That doesn't mean that has to have been right of course, but it demonstrates that there was a widely held tradition at that time, of who wrote them. I know of no other ancient writers who ascribed them to others.

Remember, the references to Reincarnation was rumored to have been written into the bible, but only to be removed to prevent comfussion.

This is probably a confused reference to the writings of Origen of Alexandria (d. 254 CE), which, in the Greek originals (extant to us only in fragments and quotations from critics like Jerome) appears to support the idea that a soul who fails to achieve perfection in their human life may be born an indefinate number of times into other bodies (such as lowly beasts, angelic or demonic bodies or celestial bodies, ie: stars). Rufinus who translated his works into Latin, attempted to rehabilitate and explain Origen in a way more palatable to orthodox Catholic sensibilities, and this is probably where people mistake this for "writing reincarnation [the doctrine of transmigration of souls] out of the Bible."

Origen also did Biblical translation and much commentary and exegesis. Some of his writings contain speculations that would later be considered heretical (or were even contentious in his time) beside much which seems fairly "traditional" (which would later be considered orthodox by mainstream Christians). I haven't read ALL his extant writings of course, but I have yet to come across any attempt by him to insert "reincarnation" into the Bible.

SykoRevan

03-10-2007, 11:40 PM

When I first heard of the tomb, I literally jumped for joy. If this is proven true, then it would completely mess with religion. Think about it. Most Christians I have spoken to worship Jesus for his origins (being the son of God, obviously), but not so much his teachings. I've always thought this fact would bite them in the youknowhwat sooner or later. Wrap your minds around this:

in Mark 16:19, along with many other sections of the Bible, Jesus is said to rise to Heaven and sit by his father after his resurrection. Now, the Ascension of Christ is said to be a bodily ascension into the skies and into Heaven. Now, this is in the Bible, and is one of the most important events pertaining to his staus as the Son of God. Now, if his body is right here, and it is said that he bodily ascended to Heaven, obviously there is some contradiction, and obviously the winning story will be that Jesus is right here in that tomb. So if a major aspect of the Bible and the history of the son of God is in fact wrong, then what next? My point is, if this tomb is in fact the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth himself, it will pretty much obliterate Christianity. Christians all around who I have spoken to (and I have spoken to many) worship Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, but not the man. They follow his example only because of his status, not because he was a good person. If he would have said for everyone to hate each other, they would have followed simply because he claimed to be the son of God. So if it's proven that he was not the son of God, what will Christians have to follow? The teachings of a liar and possible delusional who claimed that he was born God's son? Not a good thing, I'm sure. All in all, Christianity itself is endangered by this tomb. But many claim that it is just a hoax and is not the tomb of Jesus and his family. The thing that surprises me is that most of these people are Christian. If I found a tomb potentially encasing a religious figure I worship, then I would try to prove it's authenticity and treat it well and respect his body, not deny it's legitimacy and say it is not his body. In fact, I wonder what Christians will want done to the body if it is the Messiah's. Once again, it's proof that they care more about his relation to God rather than his character. And before someone says to me "You just hope it's his tomb because you're an Atheist and you want to see Christianity gone." Now, this is true, but I will not be one of those people who ignorantly state that it IS his tomb. I know that it is not completely determined. And since no DNA records reach Jesus' time, we must rely on less accurate determinations, such as the age of the tomb's construction, the relation of the bodies in the tomb in terms of whether they are related, and if so then to what extent, and authenticity of the scriptures and writing on the tomb. If these things can be proven to be leaning towards the possibility of it being the true tomb of Jesus, then the evidence contradicting Christianity's story of Jesus will heavily outweigh the pretty much nonexistant evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. It might never be proven completely true, but the evidence will point in that direction. In conclusion, do not think just on the tomb itself, but the various religious and nonreligious reactions to it and how much it shows into the beliefs of those people.

Rabish Bini

03-11-2007, 06:07 AM

@SkykoRevan: How do you know that Jesus ascended into Heaven with his body? I've read it too, but it may have been misinterpreted. Think about it, the Bible was writen by many people, mainly Jesus' apostles, and it was written over a millenia ago. Information could've been lost as it went through more and more interpretations in different languages, or it could've been misinterpreted as it changed languages.

As for the tomb, I doubt it's authenticity, a person tried to pull off something like this a couple of years ago and he got slapped with a fine.

SykoRevan

03-11-2007, 03:21 PM

@SkykoRevan: How do you know that Jesus ascended into Heaven with his body? I've read it too, but it may have been misinterpreted. Think about it, the Bible was writen by many people, mainly Jesus' apostles, and it was written over a millenia ago. Information could've been lost as it went through more and more interpretations in different languages, or it could've been misinterpreted as it changed languages.

As for the tomb, I doubt it's authenticity, a person tried to pull off something like this a couple of years ago and he got slapped with a fine.

If one major part of Jesus's story was misinterpreted, then how do we know the whole thing's not just "misinterpreted?" Small things can be misinterpreted and overlooked, but I doubt that would happen when a guy's body starts floating up into the sky. The Ascension was too major in Jesus's story, and along with his Resurrection, was an event that supposedly proved to all his followers that he was the son of God. To say that the Ascension was a misinterpretation is to call the Bible inaccurate. How many Chrsitans would agree to that, I wonder?

And just because someone else tried to do the same thing a couple of years ago, we should not rule out the possibility of the tomb's authenticity.

Rabish Bini

03-12-2007, 07:05 AM

^True, and i'm not ruling out the tomb's authenticity, i'm just saying people have pulled hoaxes like this before, and none of them were true.

Jae Onasi

03-12-2007, 11:32 AM

When I first heard of the tomb, I literally jumped for joy. If this is proven true, then it would completely mess with religion.

Why would that bring you such joy? I would not take joy in something that would 'completely mess with atheism' because of the difficulties many atheists would then face giving up cherished (non-)beliefs. If something did come along that definitively disproved God, I would hope that atheists would show theists some measure of compassion as they worked through the massive paradigm shift in their lives.

The stories I'm hearing on WGN radio news this am indicated that religious and non-religious scholars alike have said there's no way to prove that it's Jesus' ossuary, and likely is not. Discovery apparently has decided not to re-air the story (which is too bad, because I'd like to see the artifacts and I missed the show)--I haven't had a chance to link an article on that and just heard it on the radio, so take that fwiw.

stingerhs

03-12-2007, 02:01 PM

i, for one, did see the documentary, and i was far from impressed. there was a lot of fact twisting in order for the message to come out the way it did.

there are several problems with the documentary itself that i found rather disturbing. first, there was no mention that the official documentation of the discovery by Amos Kloner found nothing remarkable about the discovery. Kloner is quoted in the Newsweek article about his opinion on the matter:To this day, Kloner says the burial cave is not extraordinary. "It's a typical Jewish burial cave of a large size," he says. "The names on the ossuaries are very common names or derivatives of names." The echo of the names of the members of the Holy Family, he says, "is just a coincidence." something else that Kloner pointed out was that the tomb was typical to middle to upper class families. he was then quoted saying:"Joseph, Mary, and their son Jesus were a poor family from Nazareth. There is no proof they even lived in Jerusalem," he said.Stephen Pfann, who was interviewed for the documentary and is a Biblical Scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, has stated that:Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

in the documentary, they pointed out that the odds were "600:1" that all of those names on the ossuaries would occur in the same tomb. according to Pfann and Kloner:But Pfann and Kloner both said it is not surprising to find a tomb containing this combination of Jewish names, which are among the most common of that period.

"The pool of names that was available during the 1st century A.D. in this country was very limited," Pfann said. He said scholars have also found inscriptions reading "Jesus, son of Joseph" in other tombs.

if you want my opinion on the matter: Simcha Jacobovici, the director of the documentary, came up with an idea and then twisted the facts around in order to present it as fact with the intention of making a lot of money off of the controversy.

SilentScope001

03-12-2007, 02:17 PM

What I really want to see:

A doctumentary showing the life of this middle-class family who is not Jesus, the holy man, but Haunun, a rich, middle-class Jew who is torn between supporting the Zealost terrorists and helping the Romans. A historical documentary about this great terror event in 70 AD would bring in a lot of money and inform people much more. Jesus may not be considered historical fact by some, but the Zealot rebellion, in which Jews tried to overthrow the Romans and take over Palestine/Israel is a documented historical fact.

Achilles

03-12-2007, 03:00 PM

That's not entirely true, offhand I know for a fact that Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) associates them with their "traditional authors" in Against Heresies which was written in the 170's. That doesn't mean that has to have been right of course, but it demonstrates that there was a widely held tradition at that time, of who wrote them. I know of no other ancient writers who ascribed them to others. Irenaeus is exactly who I was referencing, however it appears that I had the wrong date. Thanks for clarifying that and for the correction.

If something did come along that definitively disproved God, I would hope that atheists would show theists some measure of compassion as they worked through the massive paradigm shift in their lives. Most atheists are former theists. Some are still very angry, but I imagine that most would be able to empathize. Mostly I think the sentiment would be something like, "cool, now check this out!"

It's a gross analogy, but think of the movie The Matrix. Neo's discovery of the truth is very difficult for him at first, but freeing his mind has some pretty nifty advantages that he has some good times with later. It's pretty much exactly like that. :)

Discovery apparently has decided not to re-air the story (which is too bad, because I'd like to see the artifacts and I missed the show)--I haven't had a chance to link an article on that and just heard it on the radio, so take that fwiw. The Discovery site has a DVD up for sale (surprise). Also there are clips available on YouTube. Unfortunately no sequence is offered so Youtube viewing is difficult to follow at best. From what I did see though, you aren't missing much.

i, for one, did see the documentary, and i was far from impressed. there was a lot of fact twisting in order for the message to come out the way it did. That's the impression that I walked away with as well.

SilentScope001

03-12-2007, 04:26 PM

It's a gross analogy, but think of the movie The Matrix. Neo's discovery of the truth is very difficult for him at first, but freeing his mind has some pretty nifty advantages that he has some good times with later. It's pretty much exactly like that.:)

But take up Plato's Anology of the Cave. Suppose a person is freed from his cave and finally sees the truth, (aka the outside world).

What if that isn't the truth? What if he merely left his cave into entering the Outside World, but that isn't really true. The cave is false, but so is this new outside world.

What if Neo is freed from the Matrix, but he then realizes that in the "real world", he's actually in another Matrix? What if the Machine wanted to do a simulation on what would happen if they built the Matrix, so they created a program that generates humans and see what they believe. So, Neo is a computer-generated thing who is trapped within a Matrix to receive dreams. When he wakes up from the dreams and the Matrix, he is hereby "free" and adjusts to this brave new world. And yet, he still gets a feeling something is wrong: And then finds out that he is in a computer simulation on seeing what would humans do when they react to The Matrix, examining their rebellious attidues.

And what about the Machines who built the Computer Simulation? What if they too are trapped in a Matrix? And what if the people who run that Matrix are also trapped within yet another Matrix?

What I really want to say is: Have we really freed our minds?

SykoRevan

03-12-2007, 07:19 PM

Why would that bring you such joy?

Personal reasons, including my own experiences with religious people everywhere I have been, have shown me that while the underlying concepts of all religions have good intentions such as loving fellow man, those intentions are undermined by the more important focus on the religious figure's power or staus (ex: Jesus as the Son of God) instead of the message they bring, as well as the fact that many have used religion for their own ends and even brainwashed people. An ever-famous example of this is of course Adolf Hitler, who not only appealed to Christians, but attacked another religious group so strongly that his followers considered them a separate race altogether. The truth is, so many people have used religion as either a tool or an excuse for their own actions. But I may be going too far into my own answer. Personally, I feel a sense of self-pride (and this sounds selfish and mean, I know, but at least I am being honest) that if this whole thing is proven true, then I will have proven myself correct over all the ignorant clergy who have bashed, harassed, and called me a "foolish young devil-worshipper who denies the power of your almighty Lord and savior Jesus Christ." (I still love the fact that the clergy call Atheists "devil worshippers" when my kind don't believe in Heaven OR Hell. It makes me giggle sometimes)

But I know that not all religious people are like this, and I do have good friends who are Christian, Catholic, and other denominations, and as for what you said about showing compassion Jae, I will of course talk to my friends about what they feel and if they need help with dealing with it, I will of course give my opinion and give advice. But this does not mean that I won't feel some personal happiness at seeing a certain religion possibly disappear. I have been noted by some to be borderline Antitheist after all.